4.3 Article

Healthy and sustainable diets that meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and are affordable for different income groups in the UK

期刊

PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION
卷 22, 期 8, 页码 1503-1517

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1368980018003774

关键词

Income; Greenhouse gas emissions; Affordable diets; Linear programming; Healthy sustainable diets

资金

  1. Scottish Government's Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division (RESAS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To model dietary changes required to shift the UK population to diets that meet dietary recommendations for health, have lower greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) and are affordable for different income groups. Design Linear programming was used to create diets that meet dietary requirements for health and reduced GHGE (57 and 80 % targets) by income quintile, taking account of food budgets and foods currently purchased, thereby keeping dietary change to a minimum. Setting/Participants Nutrient composition, GHGE and price data were mapped to 101 food groups in household food purchase data (UK Living Cost and Food Survey (2013), 5144 households). Results Current diets of all income quintiles had similar total GHGE, but the source of GHGE differed by types of meat and amount of fruit and vegetables. It was possible to create diets with a 57 % reduction in GHGE that met dietary and cost restraints in all income groups. In the optimised diets, the food sources of GHGE differed by income group due to the cost and keeping the level of deviation from current diets to a minimum. Broadly, the changes needed were similar across all groups; reducing animal-based products and increasing plant-based foods but varied by specific foods. Conclusions Healthy and lower-GHGE diets could be created in all income quintiles but tailoring changes to income groups to minimise deviation may make dietary changes more achievable. Specific attention must be given to make interventions and policies appropriate for all income groups.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据